The Language Teacher
September 2001
A Quantitative Look at Monbusho's Prescribed Word List and Words Found in Monbusho-Approved Textbooks
Michael Bowles
Osaka Gakuin University
This article is a companion piece to one that appeared in the January 2001 issue of TLT which discussed qualitative factors negatively affecting the development of the Ministry's EFL word list for lower-secondary schools into Ministry-approved textbooks. Those factors were shown to detrimentally affect textbooks' inclusion of the most common meanings and uses of prescribed words and, thus, learners' exposure to them. In this article, Monbusho's list and first-year Ministry-approved textbooks are examined quantitatively, with respect to the number of important high-frequency words found in them. The findings point to inadequacies in the quantitative aspect of the Ministry's overall approach to vocabulary which may be seriously disadvantaging public lower-secondary school learners in reaching the EFL pedagogical goals Monbusho sets for them and in meeting their future EFL needs and objectives.
How Many Words? A Principled Pedagogical EFL Corpus for Beginning Learners
Any consideration of an adequate corpus for learners must take into account their EFL needs and the pedagogical goals and objectives of the EFL curriculum. For these learners, English is a required subject in both lower and upper secondary school (Monbusho, 1989). Monbusho has established that learners need to acquire the four language skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing as explicit, broad pedagogical objectives for learners. Guidelines particularly emphasize listening and speaking practice "in order for students to develop practical communicative competence" (Monbusho, 1998). Specifically mentioned language targets are "acquiring such functions of discourse as greeting, making requests, and the like." Moreover, English is a required subject for learners continuing their academic careers into university.
While there are no set rules concerning how many words should constitute a principled corpus for beginners/near-beginners, the literature (Carter, 1987; Judd, 1978; McCarthy, 1990; Nation, 1990; Richards, 1976; Sinclair and Renouf, 1988; Twaddell, 1973; Willis, 1990) provides clear guidelines. Generally, scholars call for strict limitation of vocabulary at the earliest stages of EFL instruction to avoid over-burdening the tasks of memorizing. It is illuminating, however, to see what strict limitation entails. For example, Twaddell (1973, pp. 63-64) argues that while the transition from beginning to intermediate stages is not a fixed one, it can be assumed that prior to the intermediate stage, there are "several hundred words (in their various grammatical forms) that the learner understands directly, with no need to remember a native-language equivalent." Willis (1990) similarly stresses 700 words (and identifies over 2000 categories of meaning based on textual frequency) to be highlighted in a first-year EFL course for beginners/near-beginners. Nation (1990, p. 5) states that if "learners need to cover a whole range of language skills, then a productive vocabulary of around 3000 base words and a larger receptive vocabulary is needed." He highlights the first 2000 high-frequency words with the admonition, "make sure they are learned" prior to upper-secondary school. For learners in upper-secondary school or university, Nation calls for spending a lot of time on academic vocabulary, a list of several hundred words, which he says is an important goal for learners "after the first 2000 high-frequency words are mastered" (1990, pp.16-19). Interestingly, even the most basic word lists, such as West's (1953) definition vocabulary and Ogden's (1968) Basic English contained 1490, and 850 words, respectively. However, mastery of these word lists would hardly be sufficient for reaching the goal of communicative competence Monbusho sets for learners.
Concerning developing communicative competence, scholars agree that a knowledge of fixed phrases or multi-word units (MWUs) is essential (Nattinger, 1980; Sinclair, 1991; Skehan, 1992; Widdowson, 1989). McCarthy (1990, p. 67) argues that because of their high-frequency in speech and writing, they should be included in word lists. Furthermore, Carter (1987, pp. 176-77) suggests that they may be easier to learn because of the "primarily phonological patterns on which large numbers of routinized collocations are based." He cites studies in Henning (1973) and Donley (1974), suggesting that lower-level learners may especially benefit from the acoustic and orthographic similarities in such units.
Scholars typically call for massive vocabulary acquisition after the elementary stages of EFL learning (Judd, 1978; Nation, 1990; Richards, 1976; Twaddell, 1973). Vocabulary expansion is necessary for the development of reading skills and strategies, such as guessing the meanings of low-frequency words from context. It is equally important for developing listening skills. Additionally, improved vocabulary adds greater flexibility to classroom activities and increases learners' performance by making the material more meaningful to them.
One implication of the need for such massive vocabulary expansion following the elementary stages of EFL learning is that beginning/near-beginning learners will need a solid foundation knowledge of the most frequent meanings and uses of high-frequency vocabulary. The number of such words generally accepted among the scholars cited above is between 2000 - 3000, and these figures refer to the base forms of those words. It is also clear that some lower-frequency words are pedagogically necessary in elementary instruction and useful to both smooth classroom operation and motivating courses of study (Richards, 1974, pp. 7279; Sinclair and Renouf, 1988, pp. 150-51).
The Number of High-frequency Words Derived from Words on Monbusho's Prescribed Word List
The number of high-frequency words (herein referring to the 1900 most frequent words of English according to the Collins COBUILD English Dictionary [CCED]) drawn from Monbusho's prescribed word list is 494. This number is greater than the actual number on Monbusho's list, as it represents the total number of high-frequency words possibly derived from the base words found in Monbusho's Guidelines (Monbusho, 1989, Table 2, pp. 102-107). It is reasonably assumed, for example, that while only do and does appear on Monbusho's list, do, don't, doesn't, and didn't (all distinct high-frequency headwords in the CCED) are also meant for teaching; and, therefore, should be counted as among Monbusho's high-frequency prescribed words (the absence of does reflects its inclusion under do in the CCED). High-frequency contracted forms are similarly counted, as indicated above although no contracted forms appear on Monbusho's list. It is assumed that these high-frequency forms are likely intended for teaching since the base words for the contracted forms are on Monbusho's list. (If ambiguity in the counting was unavoidable, it was deemed more prudent to err on the side of inclusion.) Notwithstanding such allowances, 494 words account for only 26% of the 1900 most frequent headwords in the CCED. Moreover, it must be remembered that 494 represents the total number of high-frequency words prescribed by Monbusho for the full three-year course period of lower-secondary school (315 to 420 classroom hours).
Many important high-frequency words are omitted from Monbusho's list. For example, 14 percent of the top 200 most frequent words of both spoken and written English compiled from the British National Corpus (cited in J. Willis, 1996) are omitted from Monbusho's list. Omitted words include: thing, job, move, place, and hold, among others. Such words are certainly appropriate for beginning/near-beginning learners. Furthermore, omissions suggest lack of systematic attention in respect to lexical principles in general and to textual frequency in particular. For example, build and building are both included, but only interesting (3%) is included, while interest (5%) is not. (Note: in the CCED's scale 5% = most frequent, (no)%= least frequent.) Similarly, mine, yours, ours, his, and hers are included, but theirs and its (5%) are not. Regarding such types of omissions, Sinclair and Renouf (1988, p. 147) state that there "is no evidence that such omissions are based on principle, and in any case, the principles involved would not be lexical."
Table 1. Recurrence and Reinforcement of a Random Sample of Prescribed Lexical (Full) Words
| Columbus | Everyday | New Crown | New Horizon | One World | Sunshine | Total English | |
| bad | |||||||
| bring | |||||||
| cold | |||||||
| easy | |||||||
| help | |||||||
| just | |||||||
| last | |||||||
| live | |||||||
| little | |||||||
| long | |||||||
| new | |||||||
| next | |||||||
| only | |||||||
| open | |||||||
| shop | |||||||
| stay | |||||||
| stop | |||||||
| use | |||||||
| way | |||||||
| work |
X indicates word is omitted from textbook.
indicates word occurs in a portion of text (songs, realia, back cover, etc.) likely not included in classroom instruction
Bold script highlights words which occur only once or twice throughout a textbook.
Lexical Omissions Inconsistent with Specific Pedagogical Objectives Explicitly Outlined in Monbusho's Guidelines
As cited above, greeting is one of Monbusho's explicit objectives for learners. It is surprising, therefore, that the important and very frequent words hello and hi are omitted from Monbusho's list. (Curiously, good-bye (2%) is included.) Furthermore, the high-frequency items Mr., Mrs., Miss., and Ms., which young learners require to more formally greet and address teachers, ALTs, and other adults, are also omitted. These six items are not consistently included across textbooks as additional words included by textbook writers. Similarly, MWUs, such as good morning/afternoon/evening, and the very frequent situational utterances (Nattinger, 1980) how do you do, how are you, and how are you doing associated with greeting are also noticeably absent from the list. These MWUs are also not consistently included across the textbooks as additional items.
Omission of Words Inconsistent with Broad Pedagogical Objectives Outlined in Monbusho Guidelines
The absence of any MWUs from Monbusho's list is also inconsistent with its broader objective of developing learners' practical communicative competence. As discussed above, scholars agree that such items are necessary to the development of communicative competence and should be included on pedagogical word lists. The absence of MWUs and title abbreviations likely reflects the narrow, orthographic concept of a word informing the list (see Bowles, 2001).
Limitation of the Total Number of Words Allowed
Under the existing Guidelines, the total number of words allowed overall in lower-secondary textbooks for the three-year course period is 1000 (Monbusho, 1989 p.102). There are 507 words on Monbusho's list; textbook writers provide the rest, subject to Monbusho approval. This limitation is apparently aimed at not over-burdening learners. However, as we have seen, limiting the number of words to such an extent is not commensurate to the objectives Monbusho sets for learners or their EFL needs in upper-secondary school and university.
Allowance for Flexibility and the Inclusion of Words in the Textbooks
Monbusho (1998) reiterates the stipulation in Monbusho Guidelines (1989) that the contents of the lower-secondary school EFL curriculum, including the prescribed word list, are shown together to allow for flexible teaching. The precise intent of this stipulation is a matter of speculation; however, one of its definite effects has been to license textbook writers to incorporate Monbusho's prescribed words at variable stages over the three-year course period. Consequently, learners using different Monbusho first-year textbooks have inconsistent exposure to prescribed words. Notwithstanding very frequent grammatical or empty words (a, the, etc.) and lexical sets, such as days of the week, months, numbers, and colors, there are relatively few prescribed words that are included in all the first-year textbooks. Consequently, learners may have no exposure whatever in their first year of EFL instruction to many high-frequency prescribed words.
The actual words omitted varies widely across textbooks, and excluded words are numerous, as first-year textbooks' inclusion of prescribed words ranges from 62% to 69% (of a list which includes only 26% of the 1900 most frequent words of English). Additionally, it should also be noted that a number of high-frequency words are found in portions of the textbooks considered marginal to the main texts, which Japanese lower-secondary EFL teachers have informed would likely not be covered during classroom instruction.
Grading of Prescribed Words for Inclusion in First-Year
Given the variable inclusion of prescribed words in the textbooks, the issue of grading words rightly comes to the fore. As Carter (1987, pp. 181-184) reminds us, the relationship between the raw frequency of a word and its usefulness is not a direct one. Lower-frequency words which are pedagogically necessary (hers 2%, ours 2%), or useful to smooth classroom operation (pencil 2%, dictionary 2%) and the development of motivating courses of study (many important nouns), do not lend themselves to objective grading based on textual frequency. However, verb forms do.
Mindt (1997, pp. 47-49) shows that irregular verb forms are more frequent than regular verb forms. He goes on to rank the top ten most frequent irregular verb forms in the LOB and Brown corpora. His list omits the top three irregular verbs be, have, and do since "these verbs have to be learned independently at a very early stage" (1997, p. 48). Excluding these, the following ten irregular verbs represent 45.6 percent of the verb patterns of irregular verbs in the two corpora: say, make, go, take, come, see, know, get, give, find. Such grading remarkably reflects utility and economy in lexical selection.
All of these irregular verbs are on Monbusho's prescribed word-list. However, none of the textbooks includes them all although all the books include various lower-frequency irregular verbs. Additionally, recurrence of these irregular verbs in the textbooks is not systematic: Those appearing only once or twice in a given textbook account for 30% of inclusions. Furthermore, their most common uses are not necessarily included, and occasionally, they are erroneously replaced by semantically unrelated MWUs. For example, Sunshine (p. 66) and One World (p. 101) include the MWU give up (CCED: give up #1, 2 quit) and reference it in their indexes as representing the prescribed word give although give is not, in fact, included in either textbook. On the whole, there is little evidence of systematic grading seen in the inclusion and treatment of irregular verb forms found in the textbooks.
Recurrence and Reinforcement of Prescribed High-Frequency Lexical (Full) Words
While for obvious reasons many grammatical or empty words recur often and consistently in the textbooks, many lexical or full words do not. As Table 1 shows, there is a wide variation of recurrence of words and, thus, their patterns of reinforcement. This variation is seen both within individual textbooks concerning different words in the sample, as well as across textbooks concerning identical words in the sample. This finding is exacerbated if words which are found in portions of the textbooks not likely included in classroom instruction are excluded.
While the sample is not large enough to make definitive statements concerning the recurrence of full words in textbooks overall, none of the textbooks shows a consistent pattern of recurrence of words within the sample. Furthermore, lack of systematic recurrence was seen in previously cited findings concerning words by and any (Bowles, 2001) and is similarly evidenced in the above consideration of the grading of irregular verbs. Overall, the combined findings suggest that it is not uncommon for many words to appear only once or twice in an entire textbook. These findings contrast sharply with those of the excessive recurrence of the word like, suggesting that its treatment is an anomaly. On the other hand, including the findings concerning the word like in the consideration of recurrence would increase the variation of recurrence of words in a given textbook to as much as 87 to 0, which is a wide variation, indeed. Words that are not reinforced in textbooks will likely not be retained by learners.
Additional Words (Monbusho-Approved but Not Prescribed) in the Textbooks
Of primary concern here is the extent to which high-frequency words are included among the additional words in the textbooks. Given Monbusho's restriction on the overall number of words allowed, utility and economy in vocabulary selection are even more imperative. On average, words of very low-frequency [2%, 1%, (no) %] account for 31% of the additional words in the textbooks. The actual number of additional low-frequency words ranges from 25 words in Sunshine to 67 words in Total English. The actual number of additional high-frequency words included in the textbooks ranges from 46 words in New Horizon to 81 words in Total English.
Table 2 is a numerical breakdown of headwords included in the textbooks. Setting aside the uses and meanings of the words in the textbooks (which may exclude their most common ones), the quantitative number of high-frequency headwords included in the textbooks compares unfavorably to the recommendations of scholars cited herein, particularly in light of the pedagogical objectives set for learners and their future EFL needs and requirements, discussed above.
Table 2. Total Headwords Included in the Textbooks
| Columbus | Everyday | New Crown | New Horizon | One World | Sunshine | Total English | |
Monbusho h.f. words (494 total) | 318 | 322 | 330 | 309 | 328 | 308 | 341 |
Mon. l.f. words (8) | 5 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 6 |
Mon. 3 diam words | 21 | 26 | 25 | 25 | 30 | 20 | 29 |
Add. h.f. words | 59 | 63 | 55 | 46 | 65 | 55 | 81 |
Add. 3 diam words | 34 | 29 | 29 | 23 | 33 | 25 | 35 |
Add. l.f words | 58 | 46 | 30 | 26 | 54 | 25 | 67 |
Total h.f. words | 377 | 385 | 385 | 355 | 393 | 363 | 422 |
| Total words | 495 | 492 | 476 | 435 | 517 | 438 | 559 |
Note: h.f. words = high frequency CCED 5% & 4 %headwords (top 1900 words of English)
3 diam (diamond) words = CCED 3% headwords (approx. 1500 words, following the top 1900 words in order of frequency)
l.f. words = low frequency CCED 2%, 1%, 0% headwords
Add. = Additional words included by textbook writers (Monbusho approved, but not prescribed)
Additionally, as noted, the number of Monbusho prescribed high-frequency words (494) remains constant over the three-year course period. Furthermore, Monbusho's restriction on the overall number of words limits additional words to approximately 500 words over the same period (and this number is a maximum limitation, not a requirement). In the first-year textbooks only 44% of additional words overall are high-frequency words. While it is a matter of speculation what percentage of additional words in the two subsequent courses are high-frequency ones, the evidence in the present review does not suggest systematic attention to textual frequency. It is likely, therefore, that the total number of high-frequency words included in the full three-year course for any textbook does not exceed 700. This is the number of high-frequency words included in some first-year EFL course books (compare Willis, J. and Willis, D., 1988).
A look at the actual low-frequency words reveals that many of these are of highly questionable pedagogical value. Allowing for the inclusion of words relating to school life and the L1 culture (approximately 14% of the total number of words), as well as important low-frequency nouns, many words still stand out as of very limited use: ace, appliance, chimney, cider, crust, donkey, embroidery, hog, miller, needle, precious, squeak, tidings, and u-turn, among others.
Concerning words from among the 3% CCED band, some seem of little practical value to first-year junior high school students: enemy, exhibition, opera, moral, saint; and the incongruity of these words alongside such dubious low-frequency words as bow-wow, grunt, mew, moo, sleepyhead, and woof is striking. From a lexical perspective, it is difficult to intuit any pedagogical justification for the inclusion of such words, particularly in light of the relatively low percentage of important high-frequency words in the books.
Given the prominent role of the EFL textbook as the primary, if not sole, EFL text/resource used in public lower-secondary schools, the research provides strong empirical evidence of serious inadequacies in the number of high-frequency words on both the Ministry's word-list and in the textbooks overall. These inadequacies are further exacerbated given the previously cited findings concerning qualitative aspects of the inclusion of prescribed words in textbooks.
Further concerns arise as The Yomiuri Shimbum (25 January 2001, p. 1) reports that the new curriculum proposed for 2002 Ministry Guidelines "aims to reduce class hours and subject content by about 30 percent." What this will mean for EFL instruction in lower-secondary schools remains to be seen; however, it is clear that any additional reduction in the number of words included in Ministry-approved textbooks will only further disadvantage public lower-secondary school EFL learners in pursuit of the EFL objectives set for them and their future EFL learning needs.
References
Bowles, M. (2001). What's wrong with Monbusho's prescribed word list? The Language Teacher, 25 (1), 7-14.
Carter, R. (1987). Vocabulary applied linguistic perspectives. London: Routledge.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1988). Vocabulary and language teaching. Essex: Longman.
Donley, M. (1974). The role of structural semantics in expanding and activating the vocabulary of the advance learner: the example of the homophone. Audio-Visual Language Journal 12 (2), 81-9.
Henning, G. H. (1973). Remembering foreign language vocabulary: Acoustic and semantic parameters. Language Learning, 23 (2), 185-96.
Judd, E. (1978). Vocabulary teaching and TESOL: A need for reevaluation of existing assumptions. TESOL Quarterly, 12 (1), 71-76.
McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: OUP.
Mindt, D. (1997). Corpora and the teaching of English in Germany. In A. Wichmann,., S. T. Fligelstone, T. McEnery, & G. Knowles, (Eds.). (1997). Teaching and language corpora. (pp. 40-50). Essex: Longman.
Monbusho. (1989). The course guidelines for lower secondary schools: Attachment to the abstract of the school education law. Tokyo: Monbusho.
Monbusho. (1998). (1999, July 17). <www.monbu.go.jp/series-en/00000016/ >
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.
Nattinger, J. (1980). A lexical phrase-grammar for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 14 (3),337-44.
Ogden, C. K. (1968). Basic English: International second language. New York: Harcourt Brace and World.
Richards, J. C. (1974). Word lists: Problems and prospects. RELC Journal, 5 (2), 69-84.
Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10 (1), 77-89.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: OUP.
Sinclair, J., & Renouf, A. (1988). A lexical syllabus for language learning. In R. Carter, & M. McCarthy, (Eds.). Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 140-160). Essex: Longman.
Skehan, P. (1992). Strategies in second language acquisition. In Thames Valley University Working Papers in English Language Teaching, No 1. Thames Valley University.
Twaddell, F. (1973). Vocabulary expansion in the TESOL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 7, (1), 61-78.
West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London: Longman.
Wichmann, A., Fligelstone, S. T., McEnery, T., & Knowles, G. (Eds.). (1997).Teaching and language corpora. Essex: Longman.
Widdowson, H. G. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. In Applied Linguistics, 10, 128-37.
Willis, D. (1990). The Lexical Syllabus: A new approach to language teaching. London: Collins COBUILD.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Essex: Longman.
Willis, J., & Willis, D. (1988). The Collins COBUILD English course, Level 1. London: Collins.
Michael Bowles has been teaching EFL in Japan for nearly ten years. Before that he taught in Budapest, Hungary. He has his BA in English language and literature from the University of Virginia, USA and his MA in TEFL/TESL from the University of Birmingham, UK.
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website